Deportation

Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were deported under immigration law to (a) Afghanistan, (b) Iraq, (c) the Democratic Republic of Congo and (d) Somalia in each month since April 2011; and how many people are awaiting voluntary or enforced removal to each such country.

Damian Green: Deportations are a specific subset of removals which are enforced either following a criminal conviction or when it is judged that a person's removal from the UK is conducive to the public good. The deportation order prohibits the person returning to the UK until such time as it may be revoked. Most illegal immigrants are removed under administrative or illegal entry powers from the UK rather than being deported.
	It has therefore been assumed that the question refers to the number of enforced removals and voluntary departures from the UK as opposed to the number of deportations.
	The following table shows the total number of removals and voluntary departures from the UK to Afghanistan, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iraq and Somalia in each month from April 2011 to March 2012.
	
		
			 Monthly total removals and voluntary departures (1,2)  to Afghanistan, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iraq and Somalia (3)  April 2011 to March 2012 (4) 
			 Number of departures 
			 Year/Month Afghanistan Democratic Republic of the Congo Iraq Somalia 
			 April 2011 88 3 16 5 
			 May 2011 116 1 11 5 
			 June 2011 96 3 40 0 
			 July 2011 126 4 16 2 
			 August 2011 112 1 32 1 
			 September 2011 80 0 34 0 
			 October 2011 112 2 36 0 
			 November 2011 144 2 23 1 
			 December 2011 88 1 17 0 
			 January 2012 108 2 26 1 
			 February 2012 107 2 42 5 
			 March 2012 21 1 39 1 
			 Total (2011-12) 1,198 22 332 21 
			 (1) Removals and voluntary departures recorded on the system as at the dates on which the data extracts were taken. (2) Includes enforced removals, persons departing voluntarily after notifying the UK Border Agency of their intention to leave prior to their departure, persons leaving under Assisted Voluntary Return Programmes run by Refugee Action from April 2011 (previously run by the International Organisation for Migration) and persons who it has been established left the UK without informing the immigration authorities. (3) Destination as recorded on source database. (4) Provisional figures. Figures will under record due to data cleansing and data matching exercises that take place after the extracts are taken. 
		
	
	Data for April 2012 onwards are not yet available, but quarterly data for April to June 2012 will be published as part of the regular Home Office publication scheme on 30th August.
	The data requested on those awaiting removal is not available from published statistics.
	The Home Office publishes quarterly and annual statistics on the number of persons removed or departed voluntarily from the UK within Immigration Statistics. The data on removals and voluntary departures by country of destination is available in the latest release, Immigration Statistics:
	January to March 2012, tables rv.06 and rv.06.q, from the Library of the House and from the Home Office Science, research and statistics web pages at:
	http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/science-research/research-statistics/migration/migration-statistics1/

Equality Act 2006

Sandra Osborne: To ask the Minister for Women and Equalities what the timetable is for the proposed repeal of sections of the Equality Act 2006.

Lynne Featherstone: The proposed repeal of sections of the Equality Act 2006 are included as measures in the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, which is currently in Committee stage in the House of Commons. Subject to parliamentary business, we expect the Bill to achieve Royal Assent during this session.

Public Expenditure

Cathy Jamieson: To ask the Attorney-General whether he expects the Law Officers' Departments to underspend their budgets for 2012-13; and what estimate he has made of any such underspend.

Dominic Grieve: The Office of Budget Responsibility forecast underspends in departmental expenditure limits as part of their economic and fiscal outlook in the autumn.
	As part of the Transparency Agenda the Government publishes the full detail of plans and out-turn for all Departments after the end of the financial year, usually in September. HM Treasury publish out-turn data for all Departments from the COINS database, available on the Treasury website on a quarterly basis. Forecasts for 2012-13 out-turn by Department will be published at Budget 2013.

Electricity Generation

Tom Greatrex: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what the total amount of spending on constraint payments was, by type of technology, in (a) Scotland, (b) England, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland in (i) 2007, (ii) 2008, (iii) 2009, (iv) 2010, (v) 2011 and (vi) 2012 to date.

Charles Hendry: Total constraint costs for generators of all types is as follows: (i) 2007-08—£70 million (ii) 2008-09—£263 million (iii) 2009-10—£139 million (iv) 2010-11—£170 million (v) 2011-12—£324 million.
	The Department does not hold the breakdown of constraint payments by type of technology. Constraint payments arise from actions taken by National Grid (in its role as System Operator) to resolve bottlenecks on the electricity transmission system. This is a competitive market, with the details of most such payments published at
	www.elexon.co.uk
	and
	www.bmreports.com

Energy

Tom Greatrex: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what level of generating capacity in gigawatts of energy from (a) gas and (b) coal is currently (i) in the planning process, (ii) in the construction phase and (iii) fully operational.

Charles Hendry: There is currently 2.1 GW of gas generating capacity in respect of applications over 50 MW in the planning system in England and Wales; no coal is currently in the planning system(1).
	In early June, over 3 GW of (gas) capacity was under construction in the UK. This is in addition to around 35 GW of gas capacity and around 29 GW of coal capacity, which was fully operational at the end of December 2010(2).
	(1) The figure for projects in the planning process do not account for projects that have been consented but not yet under construction. Pre-applications projects under the Planning Act are also not included, as these as they are not considered applications until developers actually submit an application. There is a significant volume of new CCGT capacity at various stages of the planning process, with more than 15 GW of new CCGT capacity having been granted consent in the UK (which includes Hatfield, which is currently designated as a CCGT).
	(2) Source—Table DUKES 5.7 of the 2011 Digest of UK Energy Statistics, available at:
	http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/statistics/energy_stats/source/electricity/electricity.aspx
	Data as at the end of 2011 will be available on 26 July 2012. Fully operational coal capacity includes 23.1 GW of coal-fired capacity plus 5.6 GW of mixed or dual-fired capacity and a further 0.6 GW of capacity listed under ‘Other generators' ‘conventional steam'. Fully operational gas capacity includes 34.1 GW of CCGT capacity plus 1.1 GW of gas capacity listed under 'Other generators' 'conventional steam'.

Fuel Poverty

Eilidh Whiteford: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what estimate his Department has made of the number of households in Scotland in fuel poverty in (a) the private rented sector, (b) local authority housing, (c) social housing and (d) owner-occupied housing since 2009.

Gregory Barker: Fuel poverty is a devolved measurement and each country of the UK is responsible for measuring the number of fuel poor households in their own country.
	The following data show the number of households in fuel poverty derived from the Scottish House Condition Survey for 2010:
	63,000 (27% of private rented households)
	120,000 (32% of local authority households)
	199,000 (30% of social housing overall including 79,000 (29%) in non-local authority housing (housing associations, etc.)
	396,000 (27% of owner-occupied households).

Pay

Caroline Flint: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what the largest amount paid to an individual member of staff at his Department as a bonus was in (a) 2010 and (b) 2011.

Gregory Barker: The Department of Energy and Climate Change currently awards both non consolidated end of year performance awards and in year special awards.
	The Department uses non consolidated performance related payments to help drive high performance in the organisations as they:
	encourage continuous high attainment because the payments are dependent upon continuing strong performance
	prevent a permanent rise in salary and an increase in pension on the basis of one off performances while still allowing good performance to be rewarded
	have no long term costs, in particular they do not increase future pension payments
	focus the work of employees more directly on the priority goals of the organisation
	motivate employees by linking an element of compensation to the achievement of objectives
	target money at those who make the biggest contribution
	End of year non consolidated performance awards are used to reward the Departments highest performers as assessed in their end of year appraisal reports.
	Non consolidated in year special awards are used to recognise performance or behaviours which might not be fully reflected in an end of year performance appraisal. These may be used to reward staff for exceptional pieces of work or taking on additional responsibilities.
	The largest performance award paid to a member of staff in the Department of Energy and Climate Change is shown in the following table.
	
		
			  Largest award (£) 
			 January to December 2010 12,500 
			 January to December 2011 12,000

Renewables Obligation

Tom Greatrex: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what the value of penalties issued under the Renewables Obligation was, by company at which the penalty was imposed, in (a) 2010, (b) 2011 and (c) 2012 to date.

Gregory Barker: The buyout payments made by suppliers who did not fully meet their obligations under the Renewables Obligation for the periods 2009-10 and 2010-11 are included in the following annual reports on the Ofgem Renewables Obligation webpage
	(1)
	as follows:
	(1) Note:
	http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Sustainability/Environment/RenewablObl/Pages/RenewablObl.aspx
	2009- 10 :
	http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Sustainability/Environment/RenewablObl/Documents1/RO%20Annual%20Report%202009-10.pdf
	—see Table A10, column ‘Total payments made by Suppliers’
	2010-11 :
	http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Sustainability/Environment/RenewablObl/Documents1/Renewables%20Obligation%20Annual%20Report%202010-11.pdf
	—see Table A2, column ‘Total payments’
	Buyout and late payments for 2011-12 have not yet been determined. Ofgem will publish the final values of the Buyout and Late Payment funds for the 2011-12 Obligation period later this year.

Staff

Stewart Hosie: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change how many staff of his Department were in the Civil Service redeployment pool on the latest date for which figures are available; and how many of these had been in the redeployment pool for more than six months at that date.

Gregory Barker: As of 10 July 2012 there were six staff in the Department for Energy and Climate Change redeployment pool. Five have been on the register for over six months.

Manchester Declaration

Stephen McPartland: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport what progress his Department and its agencies have made on implementation of the Manchester Declaration of 2005.

Edward Vaizey: The Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and its agencies did not have a role in the implementation of the Manchester Declaration of 2005. This declaration and its implementation was the responsibility of the Cabinet Office. However, DCMS is responsible for co-ordinating the UK's response to the Digital Agenda for Europe, the EU's five-year ICT strategy. The Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt), believes that the main priority arising from the Digital Agenda should be the creation of a true European Digital Single Market that could help realise much needed economic growth within the EU. DCMS is spending £830 million up to 2015 on infrastructure programmes run by Broadband Delivery UK as well as managing the process that will lead to the auction of spectrum to support 4G mobile broadband services. These programmes will help to ensure that the digital infrastructure to deliver essential public services is as widely available throughout the UK as possible.

Mobile Phones

Tom Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport pursuant to the answer of 28 June 2012, Official Report, column 332W, on mobile telephones, whether his official mobile telephone device is capable of sending and receiving emails from private accounts.

Jeremy Hunt: All departmental BlackBerrys are associated with a specific official mailbox and no other. They receive any email sent to the associated mailbox that is allowed through the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and Public Service, spam filters and anti-virus software. The devices will only send emails from the associated official account. However, the devices can access the internet and would be capable of accessing webmail services such a gmail and Hotmail.

Subtitling

Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport whether his Department has undertaken any research on the importance to people with hearing loss of the provision of subtitles on all broadcast programmes.

Edward Vaizey: The Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) has not undertaken any research on the importance to people with hearing loss of the provision of subtitles on broadcast programmes.
	As part of the Communications Review process, DCMS has published a paper on the 'Consumer Perspective' which, among other things, asks questions about accessibility issues and we welcome any evidence or research being fed in to the Review. This will be discussed at the next meeting of the DCMS eAccessibility Forum, and comments on this and other papers can be submitted before 14 September, via the Communications Review website:
	http://dcmscommsreview.readandcomment.com/

Alcoholic Drinks: Young People

Eleanor Laing: To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer of 18 June 2012, Official Report, column 780W, on alcoholic drinks: young people, how many of the admissions of people under the age of 18 years in each (a) socio-economic, (b) ethnic and (c) gender group admitted to hospital with suspected alcohol-induced conditions in each of the last 10 years were (i) wholly and (ii) partially attributable to alcohol.

Anne Milton: The following table gives the estimated number of admissions with an alcohol-related primary or secondary diagnosis. The earliest year for which such estimates are available is 2002-03.
	In the case of patients aged 16 or over, the estimates are based on the proportion of diseases and injuries that can be wholly or partially attributed to alcohol. In the case of patients aged under 16, the figures relate only to diseases and injuries wholly attributable to alcohol, as research is not available for this age group to estimate diseases and injuries that can be partially attributed to alcohol. Some of the observed increase in admissions for patients aged 16 or over is the result of improvements in the recording of secondary diagnoses.
	
		
			 Estimated number of admissions of patients aged under 18 with an alcohol-related primary or secondary diagnosis¹, split by (i) wholly attributable and (ii) partially attributable conditions and (a) socio-economic group², (b) ethnicity³, and (c) gender for the years 2002-3 to 2010-11: Activity in English national health service hospitals and English NHS commissioned activity in the independent sector 
			 (a) Socio-economic group 
			  2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 
			 Socio-economic group Wholly attributable Partially attributable Wholly attributable Partially attributable Wholly attributable Partially attributable 
			 Least deprived 10% 367 319 426 347 438 350 
			 Less deprived 10-20% 461 369 464 349 506 369 
			 Less deprived 20-30% 427 355 541 339 528 387 
			 Less deprived 30-40% 456 339 572 332 572 417 
			 Less deprived 40-50% 489 402 557 394 598 431 
			 More deprived 40-50% 572 453 639 471 702 522 
			 More deprived 30-40% 684 554 752 518 805 608 
			 More deprived 20-30% 757 491 864 583 949 631 
			 More deprived 10-20% 871 646 947 659 1,035 751 
			 Most deprived 10% 1,062 824 1,191 983 1,309 921 
			 Unknown 60 36 81 51 111 56 
		
	
	
		
			 (a) Socio-economic group 
			  2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 
			 Socio-economic group Wholly attributable Partially attributable Wholly attributable Partially attributable Wholly attributable Partially attributable 
			 Least deprived 10% 511 388 474 383 452 420 
			 Less deprived 10-20% 571 428 465 441 543 418 
			 Less deprived 20-30% 565 431 533 432 588 504 
			 Less deprived 30-40% 638 526 614 542 667 457 
			 Less deprived 40-50% 735 499 734 529 656 544 
			 More deprived 40-50% 808 567 754 611 741 619 
			 More deprived 30-40% 897 591 884 585 863 581 
			 More deprived 20-30% 1,073 661 1,063 677 1,025 713 
			 More deprived 10-20% 1,166 710 1,196 777 1,149 834 
			 Most deprived 10% 1,433 1,023 1,574 1,017 1,425 1,078 
			 Unknown 141 68 140 61 158 80 
		
	
	
		
			 (a) Socio-economic group 
			  2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 
			 Socio-economic group Wholly attributable Partially attributable Wholly attributable Partially attributable Wholly attributable Partially attributable 
			 Least deprived 10% 411 392 368 410 334 420 
			 Less deprived 10-20% 441 446 415 477 370 473 
			 Less deprived 20-30% 515 451 469 434 391 503 
			 Less deprived 30-40% 502 468 502 456 420 496 
			 Less deprived 40-50% 544 469 531 506 501 485 
			 More deprived 40-50% 623 596 648 549 613 559 
			 More deprived 30-40% 721 613 693 653 647 678 
			 More deprived 20-30% 817 716 895 700 767 701 
			 More deprived 10-20% 970 736 1,020 832 864 805 
			 Most deprived 10% 1,220 1,023 1,137 989 1,148 1,017 
			 Unknown 112 61 103 44 88 51 
		
	
	
		
			 (b) Ethnic group 
			   2002-03 (4) 2003-04 2004-05 
			  Ethnicity Wholly attributable Partially attributable Wholly attributable Partially attributable Wholly attributable Partially attributable 
			 A British (White) 2,923 2,382 3,792 2,931 4,361 3,394 
			 B Irish (White) 4 6 8 7 11 7 
			 C Any other White background 126 107 137 113 157 130 
			 D White and Black Caribbean (Mixed) 19 10 14 16 16 13 
			 E White and Black African (Mixed) 4 1 3 8 1 6 
			 F White and Asian (Mixed) 3 9 6 7 7 6 
			 G Any other Mixed background 16 8 14 12 15 10 
			 H Indian (Asian or Asian British) 20 32 43 35 28 51 
			 J Pakistani (Asian or Asian British) 3 56 6 63 7 96 
			 K Bangladeshi (Asian or Asian British) 4 11 7 14 12 16 
			 L Any other Asian background) 5 19 8 19 14 20 
			 M Caribbean (Black or Black British) 17 23 21 34 14 34 
			 N African (Black or Black British) 16 13 14 24 7 36 
			 P Any other Black background 12 32 21 42 21 45 
			 R Chinese (other ethnic group) 1 12 5 11 6 3 
			 S Any other ethnic group 29 51 50 35 53 50 
			 X Not known 155 89 555 343 591 307 
			 Z Not stated 2,200 1,448 2,330 1,312 2,232 1,218 
			 0 White 212 215 — — — — 
			 1 Black—Caribbean 3 4 — — — — 
			 2 Black—African — 2 — — — — 
			 3 Black—Other 3 1 — — — — 
			 4 Indian — 0 — — — — 
			 5 Pakistani — 2 — — — — 
			 6 Bangladeshi — 1 — — — — 
			 8 Any other ethnic group 3 4 — — — — 
			 9 Not given 428 249 — — — — 
		
	
	
		
			 (b) Ethnic group 
			   2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 
			  Ethnicity Wholly attributable Partially attributable Wholly attributable Partially attributable Wholly attributable Partially attributable 
			 A British (White) 5,440 3,914 5,828 4,283 6,098 4,624 
			 B Irish (White) 15 8 17 8 15 9 
			 C Any other White background 149 109 139 111 149 118 
		
	
	
		
			 D White and Black Caribbean (Mixed) 26 16 28 23 17 27 
			 E White and Black African (Mixed) 3 3 3 3 8 8 
			 F White and Asian (Mixed) 3 8 5 25 17 32 
			 G Any other Mixed background 25 24 27 27 40 29 
			 H Indian (Asian or Asian British) 32 36 40 48 39 47 
			 J Pakistani (Asian or Asian British) 15 100 15 77 13 108 
			 K Bangladeshi (Asian or Asian British) 7 22 8 27 26 30 
			 L Any other Asian background) 13 27 16 35 20 45 
			 M Caribbean (Black or Black British) 25 34 25 37 29 45 
			 N African (Black or Black British) 13 36 25 48 19 49 
			 P Any other Black background 28 42 39 55 40 56 
			 R Chinese (other ethnic group) 2 6 1 7 4 6 
			 S Any other ethnic group 87 72 88 78 105 83 
			 X Not known 627 271 546 256 443 208 
			 Z Not stated 2,028 1,164 1,581 909 1,185 724 
			 0 White — — — — — — 
			 1 Black—Caribbean — — — — — — 
			 2 Black—African — — — — — — 
			 3 Black—Other — — — — — — 
			 4 Indian — — — — — — 
			 5 Pakistani — — — — — — 
			 6 Bangladeshi — — — — — — 
			 8 Any other ethnic group — — — — — — 
			 9 Not given — — — — — — 
		
	
	
		
			 (b) Ethnic Group 
			   2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 
			  Ethnicity Wholly attributable Partially attributable Wholly attributable Partially attributable Wholly attributable Partially attributable 
			 A British (White) 5,314 4,515 5,461 4,642 4,904 4,741 
			 B Irish (White) 13 10 11 13 10 17 
			 C Any other White background 136 125 150 132 140 143 
			 D White and Black Caribbean (Mixed) 29 40 27 35 32 42 
			 E White and Black African (Mixed) 5 8 9 5 8 8 
			 F White and Asian (Mixed) 17 26 7 32 10 29 
			 G Any other Mixed background 30 38 44 32 41 36 
			 H Indian (Asian or Asian British) 45 52 36 59 40 65 
			 J Pakistani (Asian or Asian British) 18 130 17 142 23 138 
			 K Bangladeshi (Asian or Asian British) 25 26 27 26 36 26 
			 L Any other Asian background) 14 56 34 56 30 66 
			 M Caribbean (Black or Black British) 27 44 32 48 33 54 
			 N African (Black or Black British) 21 55 41 61 32 87 
			 P Any other Black background 41 58 36 66 45 71 
			 R Chinese (other ethnic group) 5 8 6 10 8 8 
		
	
	
		
			 S Any other ethnic group 88 92 106 105 118 107 
			 X Not known 228 134 184 129 169 116 
			 Z Not stated 820 553 553 456 464 437 
			 0 White — — — — — — 
			 1 Black—Caribbean — — — — — — 
			 2 Black—African — — — — — — 
			 3 Black—Other — — — — — — 
			 4 Indian — — — — — — 
			 5 Pakistani — — — — — — 
			 6 Bangladeshi — — — — — — 
			 8 Any other ethnic group — — — — — — 
			 9 Not given — — — — — — 
		
	
	
		
			 (c) Gender 
			  2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 
			 Gender Wholly attributable Partially attributable Wholly attributable Partially attributable Wholly attributable Partially attributable 
			 Male 2,901 2,566 3,236 2,612 3,380 2,823 
			 Female 3,305 2,222 3,798 2,413 4,173 2,620 
		
	
	
		
			 (c) Gender 
			  2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 
			 Gender Wholly attributable Partially attributable Wholly attributable Partially attributable Wholly attributable Partially attributable 
			 Male 3,811 3,068 3,790 3,115 3,536 3,110 
			 Female 4,727 2,824 4,641 2,939 4,731 3,138 
		
	
	
		
			 (c) Gender 
			  2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 
			 Gender Wholly attributable Partially attributable Wholly attributable Partially attributable Wholly attributable Partially attributable 
			 Male 2,974 2,935 2,923 2,915 2,657 2,906 
			 Female 3,902 3,035 3,858 3,135 3,486 3,283 
			 (1) Alcohol-related admissions The number of alcohol-related admissions is based on the methodology developed by the North West Public Health Observatory (NWPHO), which uses 48 indicators for alcohol-related illnesses, determining the proportion of a wide range of diseases and injuries that can be partly attributed to alcohol as well as those that are, by definition, wholly attributable to alcohol. Further information on these proportions can be found at: www.nwph.net/nwpho/publications/AlcoholAttributableFractions.pdf The application of the NWPHO methodology has recently been updated and is now available directly from Hospital Episode Statistics (HES). As such, information about episodes estimated to be alcohol related may be slightly different from previously published data. (2) Socio-economic group The socio-economic group used is derived from the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD). IMD is a measure of multiple deprivation which ranks the relative deprivation of each area of England in a number domains (such as crime and income) and then combines the individual scores to produce a composite score for each area. The patient's residential postcode is then mapped to one of these areas, and summarised into 10 groups for presentation. The version of IMD used was published in 2004. For further details see: www.communities.gov.uk/documents/communities/pdf/131206.pdf (3) Ethnicity Ethnicity data may not be good enough to allow accurate analysis, including analysis of ethnic differences. Ethnic group was collected from 1 April 1995 to 31 March 2002 and Ethnic category, using the definitions in the 2001 census, from 1 April 2002. Patients are asked to select their category from a standard list, and some decline to do this. Data may therefore be incomplete and of poor quality. (4) It should be noted that there was a change in the ethnic categories during this period (2002-03) and while some providers adopted the new definitions others still used the old definition. Notes: 1. Assessing growth through time HES figures are available from 1989-90 onwards. Changes to the figures over time need to be interpreted in the context of improvements in data quality and coverage (particularly in earlier years), improvements in coverage of independent sector activity (particularly from 2006-07) and changes in NHS practice. For example, apparent reductions in activity may be due to a number of procedures which may now be undertaken in outpatient settings and so no longer include in admitted patient HES data. 2. Data quality HES are compiled from data sent by more than 300 NHS trusts and primary care trusts (PCTs) in England and from some independent sector organisations for activity commissioned by the English NHS. The NHS Information Centre for health and social care liaises closely with these organisations to encourage submission of complete and valid data and seeks to minimise inaccuracies. While this brings about improvement over time, some shortcomings remain. 3. Activity included Activity in English NHS Hospitals and English NHS commissioned activity in the independent sector. Source: Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Health and Social Care Information Centre

Breast Cancer

John Leech: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people aged (a) 49 years and under, (b) 50 to 59, (c) 60 to 69, (d) 70 to 79, (e) 80 to 89 and (f) over 90 years received any active treatment for breast cancer in each (i) cancer network and (ii) primary care trust in each year since 1997 for which figures are available.

Paul Burstow: This information cannot be provided in the format requested. We have provided a count of finished consultant episodes (FCEs) with a primary diagnosis of breast cancer by cancer network, primary care trust (PCT) of residence and by the selected age groups. This information has been placed in the Library.
	FCEs should not be described as a count of patients as the same person may have been admitted on more than one occasion. Cancer network data is not available prior to 2009-10 and therefore data from 1997-98 to 2008-09 is provided at PCT level only.

Cancer

Gordon Henderson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 
	(1)  by what means cancer networks are funded;
	(2)  if he will take steps to ensure cancer networks can be supported beyond 2013 in order to continue to improve the quality of care across integrated pathways.

Paul Burstow: Funding to support cancer networks is mainly provided through what is called the Strategic Health Authority bundle. In addition to funding from the bundle, networks receive funding from other sources, such as their constituent primary care trusts or from one or more of their provider trusts.
	We have made it clear that there will be a continual role for clinical networks, such as cancer networks, in the reformed national health service. The networks are a place where clinicians from different sectors come together to improve the quality of care across integrated pathways.
	The cancer networks are a clear example of how this way of working delivers better quality care and we are continuing to fund the networks in 2012-13. From April 2013, the funding of the networks will be a decision for the NHS Commissioning Board (NHS CB). The NHS CB will also set levels of accountability.
	A review of clinical networks is currently under way by the NHS CB Authority to consider the functions, structures and governance that will mostly effectively support commissioners to deliver improved quality and outcomes in the future.

Cancer: Males

Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to raise awareness among young people and in schools of (a) testicular cancer and (b) other male cancers; and if he will make a statement.

Paul Burstow: ‘Improving Outcomes: A Strategy for Cancer’ set out a commitment to work with charities that represent patients with less common cancers, such as those affecting children and young people, to assess what more can be done to encourage awareness, appropriate referrals to secondary care and to diagnose such cancers earlier. During 2011, departmental officials met with 18 charities to hear their concerns on these issues, including two charities representing children and young people with cancer. The outcome of these discussions have been fed into the National Awareness and Early Diagnosis Initiative and is informing activity in this area.
	Regarding awareness of testicular cancer, we would encourage men to be aware of any unusual changes and consult doctors early in order to ensure the maximum chance of a cure. The Department collaborated with Cancer Research UK in the production of a testicular self-awareness leaflet, ‘Detecting Testicular Cancer: Spot The Symptoms Early’.
	The Department has undertaken no other awareness activity among young people in relation to other the two male cancers. Both prostate and penile cancer primarily affect older men and the latter is also very rare.
	The Department for Education (DFE) is responsible for matters concerning health educations and awareness in schools. The current personal, social, health and economic (PSHE) education non-statutory framework includes the importance of healthy lifestyles. It provides opportunities for pupils to discuss health issues that teachers identify as being relevant to them, which could include cancer awareness and health advocacy. Many schools also use external organisations to provide young people with information about cancer including how to seek professional advice.
	The DFE is currently reviewing PSHE education to identify the core body of knowledge that pupils need and to determine how it can support schools to improve the quality of all PSHE teaching. It will publish the outcome of the review later in the year.

Health Services

Heidi Alexander: To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his Department plans to publish a commissioning outcomes framework for specialised services to measure the quality of commissioning of such services by the NHS Commissioning Board.

Simon Burns: As set out in 'Our NHS care objectives', the draft mandate to the NHS Commissioning Board, the Government intends that there should be robust and transparent arrangements to provide assurance about the quality of the services that the NHS Commissioning Board itself commissions, including specialised services. One of the proposed objectives in the draft mandate is for the board to put in place such arrangements so that the Department is able to hold the board to account for the quality of these services.
	The intended purpose of the Commissioning Outcomes Framework is to provide assurance about the quality of services commissioned by clinical commissioning groups and the health outcomes achieved from these services. It is not, therefore, intended that the Commissioning Outcomes Framework would in itself cover the services directly commissioned by the board, but the board would publish information on the quality of specialised services and other directly commissioned services alongside information from the Commissioning Outcomes Framework.

Health Services

Rosie Cooper: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what mechanisms he plans to put in place to provide effective scrutiny of the decisions made by (a) the National Commissioning Board and (b) clinical commissioning groups.

Simon Burns: The Government will set objectives in a mandate to the NHS Commissioning Board that it must seek to achieve.
	The mandate is one part of a wider cycle of accountability for the NHS Commissioning Board. The Health and Social Care Act 2012 makes clear that the board must publish a business plan each year, setting out how it intends to carry out its functions and deliver the objectives and requirements in the mandate. The Secretary of State must keep the board's performance under review, including how it is performing against the mandate. The Act also states that the board must publish a report at the end of each year saying how it has performed and that the Secretary of State must then publish an assessment of the board's performance.
	Besides these formal requirements, there will be an ongoing sponsorship relationship between the Department and the board, which will be outlined in a framework agreement. In particular, the Secretary of State will hold formal accountability meetings with the Chair of the board, normally every two months, and the minutes of these meetings will be published.
	The NHS Commissioning Board will develop a commissioning outcomes framework to drive up quality and provide transparency and accountability about the quality of services that clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) commission for their patients.
	While the board will be expected to give CCGs freedom to commission services tailored to the needs of their local population, CCGs will be accountable to the NHS Commissioning Board through an annual performance assessment. This will, in addition to reviewing progress against the commissioning outcomes framework, assess how well the CCG has met its financial duties and other statutory duties, including its duty to act consistently with the mandate. This will provide a direct line of accountability back to the expectations set out in the mandate. The board must publish a report annually summarising the results of all its performance assessments of CCGs.

NHS

Rosie Cooper: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 
	(1)  if he will report on the progress of the cross-sector task and finish groups on implementation of the recommendations of his Department's Innovation, Health and Wealth report;
	(2)  how his Department plans to ensure that local NHS trusts and clinical commissioning groups fully implement the recommendations of its Innovation, Health and Wealth report.

Simon Burns: Since publishing ‘Innovation Health and Wealth: accelerating adoption and diffusion in the NHS’ we have established 26 cross-sector ‘Task and Finish’ groups to lead implementation and progress is on track.
	The NHS is mobilising to deliver the recommendations and the NHS Chief Executive has asked all primary care trust clusters to ensure plans, are in place to deliver Innovation Health and Wealth.

South London Healthcare NHS Trust

Jo Johnson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 
	(1)  if he will take steps to minimise uncertainty for NHS staff and patients arising from the decision to place South London Healthcare NHS Trust in trust special administration;
	(2)  under what timetable he proposes that the trust special administration process will achieve long-term clinical and financial suitability of health services provided by South London Healthcare NHS Trust;
	(3)  if he will take steps to ensure that the trust special administration process does not lead to South London Healthcare NHS Trust services being relocated to out-of-borough or in central London hospitals that are hard to access for London borough of Bromley residents.

Simon Burns: The Secretary of State for Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley), earlier today announced details behind his decision to appoint a Trust Special Administrator to South London Healthcare NHS Trust.
	The Trust Special Administrator's regime offers a transparent framework to provide rapid resolution to problems within a significantly challenged NHS trust. The Secretary of State's decision is based on the need to secure a route forward to deliver long-term sustainability and the protection of access to quality services for the people of south-east London.
	We cannot prejudge the recommendations that will be made about what should happen to the organisation and the services it provides. That must be a matter for the appointed Trust Special Administrator. Staff and the public will be engaged in the administrator's process. The Secretary of State will make a final decision based on the administrator's recommendations, publishing that decision and the reasons for it in Parliament. We will do everything possible to bring this matter to a conclusion as quickly as possible.

South London Healthcare NHS Trust

Jo Johnson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 
	(1)  if he will take steps to ensure that the consultation on the future of the services at Orpington Hospital will proceed independently of any decision to place South London NHS Healthcare Trust in trust special administration;
	(2)  if he will take steps to ensure that health services prioritised in NHS South East London's Orpington Needs Assessment continue to be provided locally in Orpington rather than at Princess Royal, Farnborough or Queen Mary's, Sidcup.

Simon Burns: The reconfiguration of services is a matter for the local national health service. NHS London expects consultation on the future of Orpington health services to launch on 16 July 2012, subject to local approval.
	The Trust Special Administrator appointed to South London Healthcare NHS Trust will take into account responses to this consultation, so far as they are relevant, as he develops his own recommendations to the Secretary of State to secure a sustainable future for services provided by the trust, assuming the consultation goes ahead.

Thalidomide

Anas Sarwar: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 
	(1)  whether any account can be taken by the relevant assessing authority of the receipt of the pilot Health Grant during a review of the care package of a thalidomide survivor;
	(2)  what assessment his Department has made of the mortality rate of thalidomide survivors compared to the general population.

Paul Burstow: An individual's eligibility for statutory support is determined following assessment. Under section 47 of the National Health Service and Community Care 1990 Act, local authorities have a duty to assess the needs of any person for whom the authority may provide or arrange the provision of community care services and who may be in need of such services.
	Best practice guidance, ‘Prioritising need in the context of Putting People First: A whole system approach to eligibility for social care in England’, was published in 2010 and a copy has already been placed in the Library.
	The care package in place and any review of this is dependent on the person's individual circumstances and preferences which should maximise an individual's choice in line with the personalisation of care.
	No assessment has been made by the Department of the mortality rate of thalidomide survivors compared to the general population.

Tobacco: Packaging

Ian Paisley Jnr: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 
	(1)  for what reasons he is extending the consultation period on standardised tobacco packaging by one month;
	(2)  on what date he plans to publish his post-consultation report on standardised tobacco packaging; and when he will make an announcement on his Department's Health's decision on that matter.

Anne Milton: As announced on 5 July 2012, Official Report, column 71WS, the Government has been asked to provide more time for people to respond to the consultation on standardised packaging of tobacco products. The Government wants to maximise the opportunity that people have to provide their views and evidence.
	The Government has therefore extended the consultation period for an extra month. The new closing date is 10 August 2012.
	The Government has an entirely open mind on standardised packaging, and want to know more about the possible benefits and consequences of taking action in this area.
	Any decisions to take further policy action on tobacco packaging will be taken only after full consideration is given to consultation responses, evidence and other relevant information.

Charity Commission

Simon Kirby: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what steps people can take if they are dissatisfied with the service received from the Charity Commission.

Nick Hurd: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Charity Commission, have asked the Commission's Head of Business Services to reply.
	Letter from Nick Allaway, dated 11 July 2012
	I have been asked to respond to your written Parliamentary Question on what steps people can take if they are dissatisfied with the service received from the Charity Commission.
	The Commission is committed to giving the best service we can. If someone needs to complain about a service we have provided we will ensure that their complaint is treated seriously, handled without bias or discrimination, we will also respect their confidentiality. The Charity Commission outlines its approach to how we deal with complaints about the service we have provided on our website.
	Our approach in summary, is as follows:
	Stage 1 Review—Initially, we will try to resolve a complaint within the area of the Commission the person is dealing with. The reviewer will look into the complaint and will aim to respond to the complainant within 30 working days, setting out the conclusions from their review and the reasons for the outcome.
	Stage 2 Review—If the person is unhappy with the outcome of the Stage 1 Review, they have one month in which they can ask for their complaint to be reviewed by a member of our Business Assurance Team. Depending on the nature of the complaint we may refer it to an independent reviewer. We aim to let people know the outcome of this stage within 20 days.
	Next Steps—The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman considers certain complaints about the service provided by a range of bodies, including the Commission.
	I hope this information is helpful.

Public Expenditure: Cabinet Office

Cathy Jamieson: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office whether he expects his Department to underspend its budget for 2012-13; and what estimate he has made of any such underspend.

Francis Maude: The Office of Budget Responsibility forecast underspends in Departmental Expenditure Limits as part of their Economic and Fiscal Outlook in the autumn.
	As part of the Transparency Agenda the Government publishes the full detail of plans and outturn for all Departments after the end of the financial year, usually in September. HM Treasury publish outturn data for all Departments from the COINS database, available on the Treasury website on a quarterly basis. Forecasts for 2012-13 outturn by Department will be published at Budget 2013.

House of Lords: Reform

Andrew Turner: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister with reference to the House of Lords Reform Bill, Schedule 1, what estimate he has made of the number of (a) electors and (b) elected Members in each area; and if he will estimate the average ratio of electors to elected Members (i) overall and (ii) in each district.

Mark Harper: The most recent figures published by the Office for National Statistics show that there were 46,107,152 registered electors in the UK on 1 December 2011. They are distributed across the 12 electoral districts defined in Schedule 1 of the House of Lords Reform Bill as follows:
	
		
			 Electoral District Number of registered electors 
			 East Midlands 3,381,552 
			 Eastern 4,315,361 
			 London 5,300,233 
			 North East 1,986,809 
			 North West 5,256,018 
			 South East 6,354,105 
			 South West 4,054,959 
			 West Midlands 4,142,089 
			 Yorkshire and the Humber 3,862,898 
			 Scotland 3,941,592 
			 Wales 2,298,569 
			 Northern Ireland 1,212,967 
		
	
	One third of the total number of elected Members of the House of Lords (360) will be elected at each House of Lords election. The number of elected members to be returned for each electoral district at each House of Lords election is set out in Schedule 2 of the House of Lords Reform Bill.
	The ratio of electors (as of 1 December 2011) to the full complement of elected members of the Lords 128,075:1.
	The number of electors (as of 1 December 2011) per elected member of the House of Lords for each district is as follows:
	
		
			 Electoral District Number of elected members in total Number of electors per elected member of the Lords 
			 East Midlands 27 125,243 
			 Eastern 33 130,769 
			 London 42 126,196 
			 North East 15 132,454 
			 North West 42 125,143 
			 South East 48 132,377 
			 South West 33 122,878 
			 West Midlands 33 125,518 
			 Yorkshire and the Humber 30 128,763 
			 Scotland 30 131,386 
			 Wales 18 127,698 
			 Northern Ireland 9 134,774

Open Prisons

Stephen McCabe: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many people convicted of murder have been placed in open prisons since 2005; and how many such offenders have escaped.

Crispin Blunt: An offender serving a life sentence for murder will generally be approved for transfer to open prison only following a positive recommendation from the independent Parole Board.
	In exceptional circumstances, the Secretary of State for Justice also has the discretion to consider cases for transfer to open conditions executively where the prisoners can demonstrate exceptional progress (that is, without reference to the Parole Board).
	In either case, the assessment of the prisoners suitability for transfer to open prison will consider all relevant information about the prisoner's risk of harm and risk of absconding.
	Data on the number of offenders convicted of murder that have been approved for transfer and then placed in open conditions since 2005 are not held centrally in a readily accessible electronic format. Between 2004-05 and 2010-11, the most recent financial years for which data are available, the number of offenders convicted of murder who have absconded from open prisons following transfer was 89. Of these all but two have been recaptured.

Pay

Rachel Reeves: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the lowest hourly rate is paid to staff by his Department; how many members of staff based outside London are paid less than £7.20 per hour; and how many members of staff based in London are paid less than £8.30 per hour.

Kenneth Clarke: The information is as follows:
	Ministry of Justice (excluding NOMS)
	In the Ministry of Justice (including Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service and the Office of the Public Guardian as Executive Agencies) the pay scales within the current terms and conditions of employment mean that no members of staff on these terms earn less than £7.20 per hour outside London or £8.30 per hour in London.
	The lowest hourly rate paid by the Department to any member of staff on these current terms and conditions is £7.42 nationally and £8.94 in London.
	There are six members of staff outside of London who are on legacy terms and conditions earning less than the equivalent of £7.20 per hour (FTE). The lowest hourly rate paid to any of these staff is £6.38.
	There are no London based staff on legacy terms and conditions earning less than £8.30 per hour (FTE).
	National Offender Management Service (NOMS)
	In NOMS (which operates under separate terms and conditions to those in the core Department) there are no staff based in London whose total (FTE) earnings are less than £8.20 per hour.
	There are 53 members of staff nationally whose total (FTE) earnings are less than £7.20 per hour. The lowest hourly rate that is in payment to any of these staff is £6.81.

Public Expenditure

Cathy Jamieson: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice whether he expects his Department to underspend its budget for 2012-13; and what estimate he has made of any such underspend.

Jonathan Djanogly: The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) forecast underspends in departmental expenditure limits as part of their economic and fiscal outlook in the autumn.
	As part of the Transparency Agenda the Government publishes the full detail of plans and out-turn for all Departments after the end of the financial year, usually in September. HM Treasury publish outturn data for all Departments, which is available on the Treasury website on a quarterly basis. Forecasts for 2012-13 outturn by Department will be published at Budget 2013.

Young Offender Institutions

Madeleine Moon: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice 
	(1)  how many cases were referred to an outside adjudicator for breaches of prison rules in (a) Cookham Wood, (b) Warren Hill, (c) Feltham and (d) Werrington young offender institutions in each month of the last two years;
	(2)  how many additional days of imprisonment were awarded to children in (a) Cookham Wood, (b) Warren Hill, (c) Feltham and (d) Werrington young offender institutions by an outside adjudicator for breaches of prison rules in each month of the last two years;
	(3)  what the ethnicity was of each child awarded additional days of imprisonment by outside adjudicators in (a) Cookham Wood, (b) Warren Hill, (c) Feltham and (d) Werrington young offender institutions in each month of the last two years.

Crispin Blunt: Table 1(a) shows how many cases were referred to an outside adjudicator for breaches of prison rules in (a) Cookham Wood, (b) Warren Hill, (c) Feltham, and (d) Werrington under-18 young offender institutions (YOI) in each month from January 2010 to April 2012. This includes 18-year-olds at these YOIs. (116200)
	Table l(b) shows how many cases for 15 to 17-year-olds were referred to an outside adjudicator for breaches of prison rules in (a) Cookham Wood, (b)Warren Hill, (c) Feltham and (d) Werrington under-18 young offender institutions in each month from January 2010 to April 2012. This excludes 18-year-olds at these YOIs. (116200)
	Table 2(a) shows how many additional days of imprisonment were awarded to young people in (a) Cookham Wood, (b) Feltham, (c) Warren Hill and (d)Werrington under-18 young offender institutions by an outside adjudicator for breaches of prison rules in each month from January 2010 to April 2012. This includes 18-year-olds at these YOIs. (116201)
	Table 2(b) shows how many additional days of imprisonment were awarded to young people aged 15 to 17 years old in (a) Cookham Wood, (b) Warren Hill, (c) Feltham and (d) Werrington under-18 young offender institutions by an outside adjudicator for breaches of prison rules in each month from January 2010 to April 2012. This excludes 18-year-olds at these YOIs. (116201)
	Tables 3(a) to 3(c) show the ethnicity of each person awarded additional days of imprisonment by outside adjudicators in 3(a) Cookham Wood, 3(b) Warren Hill and 3(d) Werrington under-18 young offender institutions in each month from January 2010 to April 2012. This includes 18-year-olds at these YOIs. (116202)
	This data has been provided by the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) from Cookham Wood, Warren Hill and Werrington under-18 young offender institutions (YOIs).
	These figures have been drawn from YOI records; as such they are subject to possible recording errors and can be subject to change over time.
	There have been no (zero) cases referred to an outside adjudicator for breaches of prison rules in Feltham Young Offenders Institution from January 2010 to April 2012 and therefore no (zero) additional days of imprisonment awarded to children of any ethnicity.
	
		
			 Table 1(a) Number of additional days of imprisonment awarded to young people by an outside adjudicator for breaches of prison rules in each month from January 2010 to April 2012 ,  all young people including 18-year-olds 
			  (a) Cookham Wood (b) Warren Hill (c) Feltham ( d) We rrington 
			 2010     
			 January 0 0 0 0 
			 February 0 0 0 0 
			 March 24 0 0 18 
			 April 28 0 0 60 
			 May 0 0 0 0 
			 June 0 0 0 0 
			 July 0 0 0 0 
			 August 0 0 0 0 
			 September 0 0 0 0 
			 October 0 0 0 28 
			 November 0 0 0 0 
			 December 0 0 0 0 
			      
			 2011     
			 January 0 0 0 14 
			 February 0 0 0 64 
			 March 116 0 0 0 
			 April 0 0 0 0 
			 May 42 0 0 0 
			 June 42 0 0 0 
			 July 0 0 0 0 
			 August 0 0 0 0 
			 September 49 0 0 15 
			 October 144 0 0 0 
			 November 0 28 0 0 
			 December 0 0 0 0 
			      
			 2012     
			 January 0 0 0 0 
			 February 0 0 0 0 
			 March 0 0 0 0 
			 April 56 14 0 0 
		
	
	
		
			 Table 1(b): Number of additional days of imprisonment awarded to young people by an outside adjudicator for breaches of prison rules in each month from January 2010 to April 2012, young people 15 to 17 years old (18-year-olds are excluded) 
			  (a) Cookham Wood (b) Warren Hill (c) Feltham (d) Werrington 
			 2010     
			 January 0 0 0 0 
			 February 0 0 0 0 
			 March 0 0 0 18 
			 April 0 0 0 60 
			 May 0 0 0 0 
			 June 0 0 0 0 
		
	
	
		
			 July 0 0 0 0 
			 August 0 0 0 0 
			 September 0 0 0 0 
			 October 0 0 0 28 
			 November 0 0 0 0 
			 December 0 0 0 0 
			      
			 2011     
			 January 0 0 0 14 
			 February 0 0 0 64 
			 March 56 0 0 0 
			 April 0 0 0 0 
			 May 42 0 0 0 
			 June 42 0 0 0 
			 July 0 0 0 0 
			 August 0 0 0 0 
			 September 0 0 0 15 
			 October 0 0 0 0 
			 November 0 28 0 0 
			 December 0 0 0 0 
			      
			 2012     
			 January 0 0 0 0 
			 February 0 0 0 0 
			 March 0 0 0 0 
			 April 0 14 0 0 
		
	
	
		
			 Table 2(a): Number of cases referred to an outside adjudicator for breaches of prison rules in each month from January 2010 to April 2012, all young people including 18-year-olds 
			  (a) Cookham Wood (b) Warren Hill (c) Feltham (d) Werrington 
			 2010     
			 January 1 0 0 0 
			 February 0 0 0 0 
			 March 1 0 0 1 
			 April 0 0 0 3 
			 May 0 0 0 0 
			 June 0 0 0 0 
			 July 1 0 0 0 
			 August 0 0 0 0 
			 September 0 0 0 0 
			 October 0 0 0 2 
			 November 0 0 0 0 
			 December 0 0 0 0 
			      
			 2011     
			 January 0 0 0 1 
			 February 0 0 0 4 
			 March 4 0 0 0 
			 April 0 0 0 0 
			 May 3 0 0 0 
			 June 0 0 0 0 
			 July 0 0 0 0 
			 August 0 0 0 0 
			 September 1 0 0 1 
			 October 7 0 0 0 
			 November 0 1 0 0 
		
	
	
		
			 December 2 0 0 0 
			      
			 2012     
			 January 0 0 0 0 
			 February 0 0 0 0 
			 March 2 0 0 0 
			 April 0 2 0 0 
		
	
	
		
			 Table 2(b): Number of cases referred to an outside adjudicator for breaches of prison rules in each month from January 2010 to April 2012, 15 to 17-year-olds only (18-year-olds are excluded) 
			  (a) Cookham Wood (b) Warren Hill (c) Feltham (d) Werrington 
			 2010     
			 January 0 0 0 0 
			 February 0 0 0 0 
			 March 0 0 0 1 
			 April 0 0 0 3 
			 May 0 0 0 0 
			 June 0 0 0 0 
			 July 1 0 0 0 
			 August 0 0 0 0 
			 September 0 0 0 0 
			 October 0 0 0 2 
			 November 0 0 0 0 
			 December 0 0 0 0 
			      
			 2011     
			 January 0 0 0 1 
			 February 0 0 0 4 
			 March 4 0 0 0 
			 April 0 0 0 0 
			 May 0 0 0 0 
			 June 0 0 0 0 
			 July 0 0 0 0 
			 August 0 0 0 0 
			 September 0 0 0 1 
			 October 0 0 0 0 
			 November 0 1 0 0 
			 December 0 0 0 0 
			      
			 2012     
			 January 0 0 0 0 
			 February 0 0 0 0 
			 March 0 0 0 0 
			 April 0 2 0 0 
		
	
	
		
			 Table 3(a): The ethnicity of each person awarded additional days of imprisonment by outside adjudicator at Cookham Wood (1) 
			  b9 b1 
			 2010   
			 June 1 — 
			    
			 2011   
			 March — 1 
			 May — 1 
			 June 1 — 
		
	
	
		
			 Table 3(b): The ethnicity of each person awarded additional days of imprisonment by outside adjudicator at Warren Hill (1) 
			  b1 b9 m2 
			 November 2011 1 — — 
			 April 2012 — 1 1 
		
	
	
		
			 Table 3(c): The ethnicity of each person awarded additional days of imprisonment by outside adjudicator at Werrington (1) 
			  b1 w1 m1 a2 a1 
			 2010      
			 March 1 — — — — 
			 April — 1 2 — — 
			 October 2 — — — — 
			       
			 2011      
			 January — — — 1 — 
			 February 3 — — — 1 
			 September — — 1 — — 
			 (1) Please see key for ethnicity codes. 
		
	
	Ethnicity key for tables 3(a) to 3(c):
	W1: White—British
	W2: White—Irish
	W9: White—Other white
	M1: Mixed—White and Black
	Caribbean
	M2: Mixed—White and Black African
	M3: Mixed—White and Asian
	M9: Mixed—Other mixed
	A1: Asian or Asian British—Indian
	A2: Asian or Asian British—Pakistani
	A3: Asian or Asian British—Bangladeshi
	A9: Asian or Asian British—Other
	Asian
	B1: Black or Black British—Caribbean
	B2: Black or Black British—African
	B9: Black or Black British—Other
	Black
	01: Chinese—Chinese
	09: Other ethnic group—Any other

Business: Government Assistance

Gareth Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what recent steps he has taken to offer (a) financial and (b) other practical assistance to (i) co-operatives, (ii) financial mutuals, (iii) employee-owned businesses and (iv) credit unions; and if he will make a statement.

Steve Webb: On 10 May 2012, the Department for Work and Pensions published the Credit Union Feasibility Study looking at the sustainability of credit unions. It also examined what more can be done to expand them to serve many more people on lower incomes. The study has been well received by the sector and a range of stakeholders.
	We have announced that we will take forward the findings of the feasibility study. In particular, the DWP will make a further investment of up to £38 million over the next three years in credit unions and community development financial institutions involved in personal lending. This investment, which is in addition to the £13 million invested in 2011-12, will be conditional upon the credit union industry meeting a number of agreed milestones for collaboration, modernisation and expansion. Our aim will be to ensure the industry's financial sustainability by the end of the project.
	The feasibility study showed that at present even the biggest credit unions struggle to meet the operating costs of making small loans to people on lower incomes. Therefore in addition to our investment in modernisation and expansion, we plan to consult on raising the cap on the interest rate that credit unions are permitted to charge on loans, to determine whether it will help credit unions achieve financial sustainability and reach a wider range of customers.
	The Department for Work and Pensions, HM Treasury, and the Department for Business Innovation and Skills will continue to work closely on all aspects of the Credit Union Expansion Project, including the formal consultation on the interest rate cap and any subsequent legislative changes.
	The Government support the right of employees to form mutuals; last year this Department facilitated around 500 staff from My Civil Service Pensions in forming a mutual.

Manchester Declaration

Stephen McPartland: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what recent contribution his Department and its non-departmental public bodies and agencies have made to implementation of the 2005 Manchester Declaration.

Chris Grayling: The Department for Work and Pensions has introduced a number of IT based systems over recent years designed to improve the efficiency of our customer facing operations and the ease by which customers and claimants can obtain information about pensions and benefits. These include the introduction of internet access devices in Jobcentre Plus offices to help engage claimants to our online services. Claimants have been able to claim job seekers allowance online since August 2010 and pensioners have been able to claim state pension online since February 2011. In addition, the online Benefit Advisor Service has provided information on benefits and tax credits since April 2008. The Information Capture Tool introduced within the Department in April 2009 has shared information between benefit systems, thus reducing the need for citizens to report a change of circumstances more than once. The Department’s telephony service has also been enhanced through new technology when the Enquiry Service was introduced from February 2010, enabling agents to handle enquiries relating to multiple benefit claims and automatically updating certain changes of circumstance across the benefit payment systems. Across the Department, there are more than 800 members of staff who hold the additional role of Digital Champion. They encourage staff to promote digital services as well as helping claimants utilise these services including applying for jobs and completing CV's.
	Of the non-departmental public bodies, the Independent Living Fund has recently introduced a secure system of electronic information exchange that has improved the speed and quality of their previous clerical system. The National Employment Savings Trust has established a web-based system that allows members and employers to communicate directly with them, for example to enrol new members. The Pensions Regulator has improved their website so that all information obligations required by them can be submitted online, including levy collection via card payment. The Pensions Advisory Service has introduced self service products on their website which include calculators and the facility to communicate by email and webform. The Pension Ombudsmen does not currently exchange information electronically but expects to introduce a web based system in October 2012.
	Of the agencies, the Health and Safety Executive operates a website that provides information as well as online tools and services for employers, employees and the general public. Improvements to the functionality of the website are ongoing and now include the facility for the notifying reportable accidents. The Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission publish all key information regarding child maintenance on its website. New IT has been developed for introduction later this year that will improve the service to clients along with an innovative web based application specifically aimed at helping hard to reach and traditionally disengaged clients seek online support.
	With regards to the improvement of procurement processes, the Department has been given approval to implement an end to end e-Procurement solution by the Cabinet Office in July 2011. This solution is now about 80% implemented and is being used for tender based sourcing activity. It includes the facility for e-auctions, which will be used going forward. Comprehensive spend analysis data extracted from the purchasing system provides detailed management information and meets the requirements of the Government Procurement Service. Documentation of all procurements valued at over £10,000 is stored electronically for public viewing as part of the Governments transparency commitment.
	Improvements in the area of identity assurance includes work ongoing to draft EU regulations relating to identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market. This will allow e-identities issued by one member state to be acceptable in another member state. The Department is working to ensure that such systems will be sufficiently robust to prevent identity theft and the misuse of information. Regulations are expected to be laid in 18 months time.

Unemployment

Bob Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many 16 to 24 years olds have been unemployed for more than 12 months in (a) Coventry, (b) Coventry North East constituency, (c) west midlands and (d) England in each of the last five years.

Chris Grayling: Figures on the number of 16 to 24-year-olds claiming jobseeker's allowance for 12 months or more are shown in the following table. Direct comparisons over this period are likely to be misleading because until last year many young people participating in Government programmes were excluded from the jobseeker's allowance statistics.
	
		
			 Aged 16-24 claiming jobseeker's allowance for 12 months or more 
			  May 2008 May 2009 May 2010 May 2011 May 2012 
			 Coventry 45 15 240 115 405 
			 Coventry North East 15 5 100 45 180 
			 West midlands 1,200 1,215 5,050 2,600 8,105 
			 England 4,840 5,640 22,350 12,605 52,195 
		
	
	Under those policies young people were required to move off jobseeker's allowance before they reached 12 months, either to a training allowance or temporary job. Those who later came back to JSA were counted as newly unemployed and this had the effect of holding the number of long duration claims at a much lower level than would have been the case given natural off-flow rates.
	Now individuals taking up work experience opportunities or entering the Work programme remain on JSA until they find a regular job. As their claim is not broken artificially, more young people are staying on JSA and moving into longer durations and the number claiming for 12 months or more is rising. In reality, however, the figures are more closely reflecting the true level of long-term unemployment. Taking account of the changes in the way people are counted, nationally the number of 18 to 24-year-olds either on JSA or another form of temporary support is slightly lower now than it was two years ago. Within this there has been a rise in the number on JSA for 12 months or more, as people are no longer moved off benefit automatically. But this has been more than offset by: a fall in the number of short-duration JSA claims, as fewer people are being re-cycled back onto the claimant count; and a fall in the number of people recorded separately because they are on a training allowance or in a temporary job.

Work Programme

Bob Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in (a) Coventry North East constituency, (b) Coventry, (c) West Midlands and (d) England have secured employment through the Work Programme to date; and what the average length of time of that employment has been.

Chris Grayling: Statistics on how many people in (a) Coventry North East constituency, (b) Coventry, (c) West Midlands and (d) England have secured employment through the Work Programme to date; and what the average length of time of that employment are not available.
	The Department aims to publish official statistics on Work Programme job outcomes in autumn 2012.

Working Tax Credit

Liam Byrne: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the average family claim for childcare tax credits was for families with children of each age in the latest period for which figures are available.

David Gauke: I have been asked to reply 
	on the Treasury.
	This information is not available because families make a single claim for child care, rather than claiming for each individual child.

Email

Tom Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what correspondence (a) he, (b) Ministers in his Department and (c) officials in his Department have had with the Information Commissioner's Office on his Department's use of private email accounts for conducting official Government business; and if he will place in the Library a copy of any such correspondence within the last 12 months.

Tim Loughton: holding answer 27 June 2012
	In December 2011 the Department received a report from the Information Commissioner on the findings of its good practice visit in October 2011, which included consideration of the use of personal email and the scope of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Information Commissioner published those findings on 15 December 2011.
	The Information Commissioner and his staff regularly exchange correspondence with departmental officials in the course of relevant Freedom of Information Act and Data Protection Act casework.

GCSE

Damian Hinds: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many and what proportion of (a) pupils receiving free school meals, (b) pupils not receiving free school meals and (c) all pupils at the end of Key Stage 4 were not entered for any GCSE in each year since 1997.

Nick Gibb: Figures for the years 2005/06 to 2010/11 on the number and percentage of pupils who achieved no qualifications at the end of Key Stage 4 by their free school meal eligibility can be found in the following table. In most cases this is based upon data on entries to qualifications, however for some vocational courses we only hold data on achievements, not entries. The Department holds data on eligibility for free school meals, information on whether or not a pupil is actually receiving free school meals once eligible is not available centrally. Figures for the years 2001/02 to 2004/05 can be provided only at a disproportionate cost. Figures for the years prior to 2001/02 are not available because pupil-level data has only been collected in the School Census since the 2001/02 academic year.
	
		
			 Number and percentage of pupils who have achieved no qualifications (1)  at the end of Key Stage 4 (2)  by free school meal (FSM) eligibility. Years: 2005/06 to 2010/11 (3) . Coverage: England, maintained schools (including academies and CTCs) 
			  Pupils eligible for FSM All other pupils (4) All pupils 
			  Number not achieving a GCSE or equivalent Percentage not achieving a GCSE or equivalent Number not achieving a GCSE or equivalent Percentage not achieving a GCSE or equivalent Number not achieving a GCSE or equivalent Percentage not achieving a GCSE or equivalent 
			 2005/06 3,363 4.3 8,311 1.6 11,674 2.0 
			 2006/07 2,821 3.7 7,189 1.4 10,010 1.7 
			 2007/08 2,235 3.0 5,870 1.1 8,105 1.4 
			 2008/09 1,835 2.5 4,474 0.9 6,309 1.1 
			 2009/10 1,401 1.8 3,505 0.7 4,906 0.8 
			 2010/11 1,212 1.5 2,594 0.5 3,806 0.7 
			 (1) In some cases only pupils who have achieved vocational qualifications are included in our data rather than those entered for the qualification. For GCSEs, all pupils who are entered are included. (2) Number of pupils at the end of Key Stage 4 in each academic year. (3) Figures for 2005/06 to 2010/11 are based on final data. (4) Includes pupils for whom free school meal eligibility could not be determined. Source: National Pupil Database

Special Educational Needs

Charlotte Leslie: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many and what proportion of children (a) statemented for special educational needs, (b) in the School Action category and (c) in the School Action Plus category were given a (i) fixed period exclusion and (ii) permanent exclusion in each year since 1997.

Nick Gibb: The available information, on the number and percentage of pupils with special educational needs receiving a permanent or fixed period exclusion, is shown in the table. This includes data on permanent exclusions from 1997/98 to 2009/10 and on fixed period exclusions from 2007/08 to 2009/10. To provide further data would incur disproportionate cost.
	The latest data on exclusions was published in the “Permanent and Fixed Period Exclusions from Schools in England 2009/10” Statistical First Release on 28 July 2011 at:
	http://www.education.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s001016/index.shtml
	Data for 2010/11 will be published in the “Permanent and Fixed Period Exclusions from Schools in England 2010/11” Statistical First Release on 25 July 2012 at:
	http://www.education.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s001080/index.shtml
	
		
			 Maintained primary, state-funded secondary and special schools (1,2,3) ; number of permanent exclusions and number of pupil enrolments receiving one or more fixed period exclusions, by special educational needs (SEN) (4) , England, 1997/98 to 2009/10 
			   Permanent exclusions (5) Fixed period exclusions (6) 
			   No. of exclusions % of school population (7) No. of pupil enrolments % of school population (8) 
			 1997/98 Pupils with SEN with statements 2,250 0.96 n/a n/a 
			  Pupils without statements of SEN 10,050 0.01 n/a n/a 
			  All pupils 12,300 0.16 n/a n/a 
			       
			 1998/99 Pupils with SEN with statements 1,920 0.78 n/a n/a 
			  Pupils without statements of SEN 8,510 0.11 n/a n/a 
			  All pupils 10,440 0.14 n/a n/a 
			       
			 1999/2000 Pupils with SEN with statements 1,490 0.61 n/a n/a 
			  Pupils without statements of SEN 6,830 0.09 n/a n/a 
			  All pupils 8,320 0.11 n/a n/a 
			       
			 2000/01 Pupils with SEN with statements 810 0.33 n/a n/a 
			  Pupils without statements of SEN(9) 8,350 0.11 n/a n/a 
			  All pupils 9,160 0.12 n/a n/a 
			       
			 2001/02 Pupils with SEN with statements 1,140 0.49 n/a n/a 
			  Pupils with SEN without statements(9) 4,710 0.35 n/a n/a 
			  Pupils with no SEN(9) 3,740 0.06 n/a n/a 
			  All pupils 9,590 0.12 n/a n/a 
			       
			 2002/03 Pupils with SEN with statements 1,030 0.43 n/a n/a 
			  Pupils with SEN without statements(9) 5,180 0.46 n/a n/a 
			  Pupils with no SEN(9) 3,140 0.05 n/a n/a 
			  All pupils 9,340 0.12 n/a n/a 
			       
			 2003/04 Pupils with SEN with statements 1,050 0.44 n/a n/a 
			  Pupils with SEN without statements(9) 5,300 0.46 n/a n/a 
			  Pupils with no SEN(9) 3,650 0.06 n/a n/a 
			  All pupils 9,990 0.13 n/a n/a 
			       
			 2004/05 Pupils with SEN with statements 860 0.37 n/a n/a 
		
	
	
		
			  Pupils with SEN without statements(9) 4,680 0.40 n/a n/a 
			  Pupils with no SEN(9) 4,030 0.06 n/a n/a 
			  All pupils(10) 9,570 0.13 n/a n/a 
			       
			 2005/06 Pupils with SEN with statements 900 0.39 n/a n/a 
			  Pupils with SEN without statements(9) 5,360 0.44 n/a n/a 
			  Pupils with no SEN(9) 3,070 0.05 n/a n/a 
			  All pupils(10) 9,330 0.12 n/a n/a 
			       
			 2006/07 Pupils with SEN with statements 780 0.36 n/a n/a 
			  Pupils at School Action Plus 3,570 0.86 n/a n/a 
			  Pupils at School Action 1,750 0.20 n/a n/a 
			  Pupils with SEN without statements(9) 5,320 0.42 n/a n/a 
			  Pupils with no SEN(9) 2,560 0.04 n/a n/a 
			  All pupils 8,680 0.12 n/a n/a 
			       
			 2007/08 Pupils with SEN with statements 700 0.33 17,970 8.42 
			  Pupils at School Action Plus 3,460 0.78 50,450 11.41 
			  Pupils at School Action 1,620 0.18 45,840 5.18 
			  Pupils with SEN without statements(9) 5,080 0.38 96,290 7.26 
			  Pupils with no SEN(9) 2,350 0.04 90,630 1.53 
			  All pupils 8,130 0.11 204,890 2.74 
			       
			 2008/09 Pupils with SEN with statements 510 0.24 17,070 8.10 
			  Pupils at School Action Plus 2,870 0.62 51,210 10.96 
			  Pupils at School Action 1,300 0.14 44,060 4.89 
			  Pupils with SEN without statements(9) 4,170 0.30 95,270 6.96 
			  Pupils with no SEN(9) 1,860 0.03 82,360 1.41 
			  All pupils(10) 6,550 0.09 194,700 2.62 
			       
			 2009/10 Pupils with SEN with statements 420 0.20 15,910 7.60 
			  Pupils at School Action Plus 2,660 0.55 48,990 10.06 
			  Pupils at School Action 1,180 0.13 40,580 4.45 
			  Pupils with SEN without statements(9) 3,840 0.27 89,570 6.40 
			  Pupils with no SEN(9) 1,470 0.03 74,280 1.27 
			  All pupils(10) 5,740 0.08 179,760 2.42 
			 n/a = Not available. (1) Includes middle schools as deemed. (2) Includes city technology colleges and academies (including all-through academies). (3) Includes maintained and non-maintained special schools. Excludes general hospital schools. (4) SEN is recorded at the time of exclusion. (5) Figures relating to permanent exclusions are estimates based on incomplete pupil-level data. (6) Pupils may be counted more than once, if they moved schools during the year, or are registered at more than one school. (7) The number of permanent exclusions expressed as a percentage of the number (headcount) of all pupils (excluding dually registered pupils) with the same SEN stage in January each year. (8) The number of pupil enrolments receiving one or more fixed period exclusions expressed as a percentage of the number (headcount) of all pupils (excluding dually registered pupils) with the same SEN stage in January each year. (9) The introduction of the new SEN Code of Practice means that the number of children with SEN without statements reported for the 2000/01 school year and later are not directly comparable with earlier years. Includes pupils with no SEN and pupils with SEN without statements. (10) Totals include a small number of pupils for whom stage of SEN was not known. Note: Totals may not appear to equal the sum of component parts because numbers have been rounded to the nearest 10. Source: School Census

Special Educational Needs

Charlotte Leslie: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many and what proportion of children (a) statemented for special educational needs, (b) in the School Action category and (c) in the School Action Plus category were recorded with unauthorised absence from school in each year since 1997.

Nick Gibb: The level of detail needed for such analysis has been collected from secondary schools since 2005/06, and from primary and special schools since 2006/07.
	The number and percentage of pupil enrolments with a special educational needs statement, in the School Action category and in the School Action Plus category with at least one half day session of unauthorised absence for academic years 2006/07 to 2010/11 is shown in the following table.
	The latest available information on absence is published in SFR 04/2012 'Pupil Absence in Schools in England, Including Pupil Characteristics: 2010/11' at:
	http://www.education.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s001060/index.shtml
	
		
			 State-funded primary, secondary and special schools (1, 2) : Number and percentage of enrolments (3)  with at least one half day session of unauthorised absence by special educational needs. 2006/07 to 2010/11. In England 
			  School Action School Action Plus 
			  Number of enrolments with unauthorised absence Number of enrolments Percentage of enrolments with unauthorised absence Number of enrolments with unauthorised absence Number of enrolments Percentage of enrolments with unauthorised absence 
			 2006/07 288,070 823,975 35.0 152,110 394,605 38.5 
			 2007/08 302,955 846,665 35.8 166,440 421.985 39.4 
			 2008/09 340,845 877,020 38.9 194,295 457,970 42.4 
			 2009/10 351,130 884,260 39.7 204,755 475,510 43.1 
			 2010/11 341,135 853,165 40.0 201,530 470,315 42.8 
		
	
	
		
			  Statements of SEN All pupils 
			  Number of enrolments with unauthorised absence Number of enrolments Percentage of enrolments with unauthorised absence Number of enrolments with unauthorised absence Number of enrolments Percentage of enrolments with unauthorised absence 
			 2006/07 62,425 198,800 31.4 1,706,330 6,582,425 25.9 
			 2007/08 60,490 192,745 31.4 1,713,685 6,478,155 26.5 
			 2008/09 63,885 194,085 32.9 1,862,545 6,408,545 29.1 
			 2009/10 63,505 192,180 33.0 1,896,630 6,387.685 29.7 
			 2010/11 63,530 192,000 33.1 1,908,010 6,382,835 29.9 
			 (1) Includes middle schools as deemed. (2) Includes city technology colleges and academies. (3) Number of pupil enrolments in schools. Includes pupils on the school roll for at least one session who are aged between 5 and 15, excluding boarders. Some pupils may be counted more than once (if they moved schools during the school year or are registered in more than one school). (4) Includes pupil enrolments for whom special educational needs information was unclassified or missing. Note: Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 5. Source: School Census

Teachers: Training

Paul Blomfield: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much funding his Department allocated to postgraduate professional development for teachers in 2011-12.

Nick Gibb: We do not prescribe how much of a school's budget should be used for teachers' professional development. Decisions relating to teachers' professional development rightly rest with schools, individual teachers and heads as they are in the best position to make judgments about relative spending priorities and requirements.
	The “Annual Report and Financial Statements 2011-12” of the Training and Development Agency for Schools show expenditure of £13,802,000 for candidates already undertaking courses as part of the postgraduate professional development programme and £6,285,000 similarly towards the Masters in Teaching and Learning programme.
	Following the launch of the National Scholarship Fund for Teachers, £603,000 was spent in 2011-12 supporting successful applicants from the first round.

Young People: West Midlands

Sajid Javid: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps his Department is taking to reduce the number of young people not in education, employment or training in (a) Bromsgrove constituency and (b) the West Midlands.

Tim Loughton: We set out in “Building Engagement; Building Futures” our strategy to increase participation and reduce the number of young people not in education, employment or training. This document is available at:
	http://media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/pdf/building% 20engagement%20building%20futures.pdf
	We are committed to raising the age of compulsory participation in education and training to 17 in 2013 and 18 in 2015 and are spending a record £7.5 billion on education and training places for young people this year.
	Vulnerable young people often require additional help to participate and we are spending £126 million over the next three years to provide a new programme of support for the hardest to help 16 and 17-year-olds as part of the Youth Contract. This will support 55,000 young people into education and training and provision will be in place in September. For the West Midlands region, we have set an indicative contract amount of £14,488,508 over the course of the programme. Figures are not available at constituency level.
	Local authorities have a statutory duty to support young people's participation in education and training. Data on the proportion of young people not in education, employment or training by local authority at the end of 2011 is available at:
	http://media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/xls/2/2011%20local %20authority%20neet%20figures.xls
	We want to ensure that young people leave school or college with the qualifications and attributes that employers want. We have recently set out the principles that will underpin post-16 study programmes to give every 16 to 19-year-old the opportunity to undertake a high quality education that enables progress on to work or further study.
	These will include a large size qualification, English and maths for those students without a grade C or better in GCSE and, where appropriate, valuable, relevant work experience. Further information is available at:
	http://www.education.gov.uk/a00210755/16-19-study-programmes

A Year of Service

Barry Gardiner: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government 
	(1)  what the names are of the members of the steering group overseeing the project A Year of Service; and what criteria were used to appoint them;
	(2)  how many meetings the steering group for the project A Year of Service has held since it was established;
	(3)  if he will publish the minutes of the meetings held by the steering group for the project A Year of Service.

Andrew Stunell: A steering group, comprised of the organisations named below, was formed by DCLG to advise collectively on aspects of the development of A Year of Service.
	Business in the Community
	The Church of England
	The Coexist Foundation
	The Faith based Regeneration Network
	The Inter Faith Network for the UK
	The Mitzvah Day Charitable Trust
	The names of individual members of the steering group are not provided as disclosure of this information is likely to breach one or more principles in the Data Protection Act 1998. Organisations were invited to join the steering group because their involvement was seen as important to the project's success. As at 12 July 2012, the steering group had met seven times.
	Formal minutes of steering group meetings are not produced; however summary notes are kept and arrangements will be made to place copies of these in the Library of the House.
	In addition, a reference group allows the faith communities involved to share best practice and promote the programme within their respective communities.

Homelessness: Greater London

Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how many (a) families and (b) single people presented themselves as homeless in each London borough in each month since April 2011.

Grant Shapps: The total numbers of decisions about households presenting as homeless (i.e. those applying for assistance under the 1985 and 1996 Housing Acts) made by each local authority in England during 2011-12 are shown in the Department for Communities and Local Government Live Table 784.
	http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/statistics/xls/2102106.xls
	These total decisions comprise: (i) all eligible households found to be in priority need and unintentionally homeless (acceptances); (ii) those in priority need but intentionally homeless; (iii) those not in priority need and (iv) those found to be not homeless.
	Information on the types of households, including single people, accepted in priority need is published at the England level in Live Table 780.
	http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/statistics/xls/2102093.xls
	We secured an additional £70 million last year to help local agencies prevent and tackle homelessness. This includes £20 million Single Homelessness Prevention Fund to help ensure single homeless people get access to good housing advice. This is on top of the existing £10 million to help single people access private rented sector accommodation and £400 million we are investing for homelessness prevention over four years (2011-12 to 2014-15).

Mortgages: Government Assistance

Hilary Benn: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how many homes had been bought under the (a) NewBuy and (b) FirstBuy schemes as at 5 July 2012.

Grant Shapps: Quality assured data on the total number of completions under the industry-led NewBuy Guarantee scheme is not yet available to Government. The Government expects to receive and make this information available from September 2012.
	The purchase of a newly built home is normally completed up to six months after reservation; as of 5 July, the NewBuy Guarantee scheme was under four months old.
	The FirstBuy scheme, introduced by this Government, will help around 10,500 first time buyers by March 2013. Homes have been available for sale since September 2011.
	Official statistics published by the Homes and Communities Agency on 12 June show that there were 2,994 sales to the end of March 2012, illustrating how the scheme is on course and on target.
	Housebuilders have found significant interest from first time buyers, reporting so far over 7,000 reservations by eligible applicants.

Burma

Jo Swinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received of the rape of ethnic Rohingya woman by police and security services following recent communal violence in Burma.

Jeremy Browne: We are deeply concerned about reports of rape having been committed by members of security forces in Rakhine (Arakan) State.
	We remain in regular contact with non-governmental organisations (NGOs) on the ground there. Simmering tensions between the different communities remain and this presents risks to local volunteers. This is hampering not only the provision of humanitarian assistance, but is also making verification of reports of rape problematic.
	In my statement of 10 June I called on all parties to act with restraint and urged the authorities and community leaders to open discussions to end the violence and to protect all members of the local population.
	The UK continues to raise awareness of the issues affecting the Rohingya. We strongly supported a UN resolution at the Human Rights Council in March which called on the government of Burma to recognise the right of members of the Rohingya ethnic minority in Rakhine State to nationality, and to protect all of their human rights.
	We will continue to highlight the need for the government of Burma to recognise the basic human rights of the Rohingya.

Middle East

Anna Soubry: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps his Department is taking to promote freedom of religion in the middle east.

Alistair Burt: Protecting religious freedoms and preventing discrimination on grounds of religion or belief are priority human rights issues for the Government. The UK strongly supports the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief and the right to freedom of opinion and expression as set out in key international human rights instruments as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
	We regularly stress to countries in the middle east and north Africa region through our bilateral contacts that respect for human rights and dignity are universal rights which must underline all political systems, without exception. We continue to make clear that we deplore all discrimination against religious minorities. For example, following violence in Egypt on 9 October 2011, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague), called the former Egyptian Foreign Minister on 12 October to discuss the action that the Egyptian Government was taking to address sectarian tension.
	We also fund projects to promote religious tolerance n the region. For example, in Iraq we have funded a grassroots religious reconciliation initiative involving a series of meetings to encourage dialogue between local religious leaders from across the sectarian divides. In Egypt, we have been supportive of interfaith dialogue and initiatives such as Beit El-Eila. We also use our close relationship with Al-Azhar University to promote inter-faith dialogue.

Mongolia

Katy Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Mongolian authorities on the freedom of the press and safety of journalists.

Jeremy Browne: The UK Government is a strong supporter of freedom of opinion and expression, including on the internet. Freedom of speech and of the press is protected by law in Mongolia, and although Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) officials regularly have raised the importance of prioritising human rights, in general terms, with the Mongolian Government, press freedom and safety of journalists has not been raised specifically.
	However, while we recognise that Mongolia has made significant strides towards meeting international human rights standards, no state should be complacent. We are aware of a recent report of an attack on eight journalists and camera operators from local television broadcaster Sky TV on 28 June, in northern Mongolia. According to media reports, this was in response to their coverage of the recent legislative elections. Our embassy in Ulaanbaatar is monitoring the case and we will continue to urge Mongolia to ensure that internationally recognised democratic norms are respected.

Nepal

Katy Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Nepalese authorities on the freedom of the press and safety of journalists.

Jeremy Browne: The UK frequently raises issues of human rights with the Nepalese authorities. We will discuss recent reports of intimidation and the deteriorating situation of Human Rights Defenders and journalists will during the eighth Session of the EU-Nepal Joint Commission next 19 July.

Occupied Territories

Ian Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had on the legal position of goods produced in the west bank and Gaza by individuals or businesses unlawfully occupying those areas.

Alistair Burt: The issue of settlement produce is a subject of active discussion with our EU partners. EU Foreign Ministers, at their meeting on 14 May, agreed that:
	“the EU and its Member States reaffirm their commitment to fully and effectively implement existing EU legislation and the bilateral arrangements applicable to settlement products. The Council underlines the importance of the work being carried out together with the Commission in this regard.”
	This ongoing work includes measures to ensure that settlement produce does not enter the EU duty-free, under the EU-Israel Association Agreement, and steps to ensure that EU-wide guidelines are issued to make sure that settlement products are not incorrectly labelled as Israeli produce.
	Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials have recently engaged in discussion with non-governmental organisation's regarding the legality of settlement produce, however, there are currently no plans for EU or domestic legislation on this issue.

Public Expenditure

Cathy Jamieson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he expects his Department to underspend its budget for 2012-13; and what estimate he has made of any such underspend.

David Lidington: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) has significantly improved its financial management and has put in place rigorous procedures for tracking its spending throughout the year. This has allowed us to forecast spending more accurately. The FCO Management Board monitors the Department's budget on a monthly basis and reprioritises in-year resources in order to seek the best value for the tax-payer and to achieve the Government's foreign policy priorities.
	The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) forecasts underspends in departmental expenditure limits as part of its Economic and Fiscal Outlook in the autumn. As part of the Transparency Agenda the Government publishes the full detail of plans and outturn for all Departments after the end of the financial year, usually in September. HM Treasury publish outturn data for all Departments from the COINS database, available on the Treasury website on a quarterly basis. Forecasts for 2012-13 outturn by Department will be published at Budget 2013.

C17 Aircraft

Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the UK's involvement is in the Globemaster Sustainment Partnership Programme; how many Boeing employees are stationed at RAF bases through the programme; how much of the maintenance of UK C-17 Globemaster aircraft takes place in the US; and what the cost of the programme has been to the public purse in each of the last three years.

Peter Luff: The UK participates in the Globemaster Sustainment Partnership Programme through a Foreign Military Sales agreement with the United States Government. This agreement utilises a United States Air Force contract with Boeing to provide cost effective and affordable logistic, maintenance and engineering services to the UK's fleet of 8 C-17 aircraft. This agreement provides a total of 18 Boeing employees, who are based at RAF Brize Norton. Depot maintenance is undertaken by Boeing in the USA, with all remaining maintenance being conducted by 99 Squadron at RAF Brize Norton. Support costs for the last three years, including spares but excluding acquisition and RAF running costs, were as follows:
	
		
			 Support costs 
			  £ million 
			 2009-10 37 
			 2010-11 40 
			 2011-12 44

Unmanned Air Vehicles

Barry Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will undertake a review of the use of drone missiles.

Nick Harvey: Reaper is the only armed remotely piloted aircraft system used by the UK. It currently plays a vital role in-military operations in Afghanistan where it is an important means of giving our ground forces the vital information they need to stay one step ahead of the enemy. It has proved to offer great military benefit and its presence has undoubtedly saved the lives of many UK and coalition forces.
	The UK complies fully with its obligations under international law including that set out in Article 36 of Additional Protocol 1 to the Geneva conventions, to review all new weapons and means and methods of warfare (a process that applies equally to unmanned capabilities and other manned weapon systems). The UK Reaper system can only release its weapons when commanded to do so by the fully trained and qualified flight crew operating it from the ground.
	In Afghanistan, the policy governing the use of Reaper is identical to that for conventionally piloted combat aircraft. UK forces in Afghanistan come under the command of the NATO International Security and Assistance Forces (ISAF) and operate in accordance with international humanitarian law (also known as the law of armed conflict) and UK rules of engagement. Military lawyers based in Afghanistan advise on all aspects of operations including the selection and prosecution of all ISAF targets, which is the subject of a rigorous process that is compliant with international humanitarian law. Every effort is made to minimise the risk of collateral damage, particularly civilian casualties, which includes in some circumstances deciding not to engage the target.

Banks: Fraud

Stephen Timms: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will assess the (a) operation and (b) effectiveness of regulations governing banks' procedures for handling cases where fraud is suspected to have been committed on a customer's account.

Mark Hoban: The Government is committed to improving access to banking and the transparency of financial products for consumers. However, it is important to balance a bank's need to protect itself and its customers from fraud against the rights of the consumer.
	It is also important that individuals continue to have recourse to adequate complaint mechanisms so that any errors can be quickly identified and rectified; and that banks continue to use good judgment and abide by best practice guidelines when using information sharing systems.
	As is the case with all regulations, the Government will keep them under review.

Business

Gareth Thomas: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent steps he has taken to offer (a) financial and (b) other practical assistance to (i) co-operatives, (ii) financial mutuals, (iii) employee-owned businesses and (iv) credit unions; and if he will make a statement.

Mark Hoban: The Government is committed to promoting mutuality and fostering diversity in financial services. The Government is undertaking a number of steps to modernise and expand the mutuals sector.
	The Legislative Reform Order for Industrial and Provident Societies and Credit Unions came into force on 8 January, which has increased the capacity of credit unions to lend to their members, admit corporate bodies, and offer interest on deposits. In January this year the Government also announced a Consolidation Bill for Co-operatives, which will simplify the legislation, making it easier for a co-operative to be set up. The Government has recently announced its support for the Credit Union Modernisation Project being run by DWP, which will enable credit unions to strengthen and grow, helping them to serve a wider range of people. In addition, an internal review is being conducted to examine the role of employee ownership in supporting growth and to examine options to remove barriers, including tax barriers, to its wider take-up. The review will also consider the findings of The Nuttall Review of Employee Ownership, and will conclude ahead of autumn statement 2012.

Commodity Markets

Sandra Osborne: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his policy is on the use of position limits for the commodity derivative markets; and if he will make a statement.

Mark Hoban: The Government supports the use of adjustable, temporary position limits, or delivery limits under a position management framework to address the specific circumstances of a particular market at a particular time. However, the Government believes that fixed, long -term position limits in isolation are an ineffective regulatory tool. The Government is also sceptical that such inflexible measures would be effective in reducing the presence of a particular participant type in the market, or would be an effective tool to address price volatility.
	The House of Lords EU Committee published a MiFID II report which is in line with Government views on the regulation of commodity derivatives markets.

Income Tax: Blackpool

Paul Maynard: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people in Blackpool North and Cleveleys constituency pay income tax at (a) 20, (b) 40 and (c) 50 per cent.

David Gauke: A breakdown of taxpayers in Blackpool North and Cleveleys constituency in 2009-10 is provided in the following link:
	http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/income_distribution/table-3-15-mar2012.xls
	Reliable estimates for later years based on the projected SPI data, are not available due to greater uncertainties in projections for small geographical areas.
	Estimates of additional rate taxpayer numbers in 2010-11 from Self Assessment data are not published for local areas.

LIBOR

Christopher Leslie: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 
	(1)  when the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was made aware of the Financial Services Authority's investigation into LIBOR manipulation;
	(2)  when officials in his Department were made aware of the Financial Services Authority's investigation into LIBOR manipulation;
	(3)  when the Commercial Secretary to the Treasury was made aware that the Financial Services Authority was conducting an investigation into bank manipulation of LIBOR;
	(4)  on what date the Financial Secretary to the Treasury informed him of the investigation into LIBOR manipulation;
	(5)  on what date he was informed by the Financial Services Authority that an investigation into LIBOR manipulation was underway;
	(6)  whether consideration was given to the regulation of LIBOR during the drafting of the Financial Services Bill;
	(7)  what discussions HM Treasury has had with the European Commission on bank manipulation of the LIBOR survey;
	(8)  what representations HM Treasury received on bank manipulation of LIBOR (a) before and (b) after the commencement of US investigations by the Commodities and Futures Trading Commission;
	(9)  if he will publish the advice given to Ministers in his Department before the 6 March 2012 meeting of the Financial Services Bill Committee on the manipulation of LIBOR by banks;
	(10)  what discussions the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and the Financial Services Authority had on an investigation into LIBOR manipulation before 6 March 2012.

Mark Hoban: holding answer 6 July 2012
	The FSA's own report of the Barclays investigation makes clear that it began investigating issues relating to LIBOR in 2009.
	Treasury Ministers and officials have meetings and discussions with a wide variety of authorities as part of the process of policy development and delivery, including in relation to the drafting of the Financial Services Bill. It is not the Government's practice to provide details of ail such meetings and discussions. Furthermore, the Government would not say or do anything that might prejudge or pre-empt the outcome of investigations into the attempted manipulation of LIBOR and other benchmarks.
	The Government has published numerous documents on its new approach to financial regulation—in July 2010 (Cm 7874), February 2011 (Cm 8012), June 2011 (Cm 8083) and January 2012 (Cm 8268)—in which it has both consulted on, and published details of, issues it has considered in preparing the Financial Services Bill.
	Parliament has agreed that a parliamentary inquiry will be established to examine professional standards in the banking industry. The committee is expected to report by the end of the year in order that its recommendations can be implemented in the Banking Bill, work on which begins next year.
	The Chancellor has also committed to an independent review of the regulation of Libor, to be headed by Martin Wheatley. This will report to the Cabinet Committee on Banking Reform, chaired by the Chancellor, with the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Vince Cable), as vice-chair, by the end of the summer.

Minimum Wage: Shipping

Katy Clark: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many times officers from HM Revenue and Customs' National Minimum Wage Compliance Unit and its predecessor departments investigated claims of non-payment of the national minimum wage against employers in the maritime sector in each year since 1999-2000; and if he will place in the Library copies of each such investigation.

David Gauke: HMRC does not categorise employers as being in the maritime sector and so cannot supply this information. If HMRC was able to provide the numbers of such investigations, it is bound by a duty of confidentiality to tax payers and so would not be able to provide Library copies of its investigations

Forests: Conservation

Zac Goldsmith: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will take steps to safeguard the public forest estate including protection and restoration of ancient woodland in her Department's response to the report of the Independent Panel on Forestry.

James Paice: The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman), confirmed in her statement of 4 July 2012, Official Report, columns 55-56WS, that the Public Forest will continue to benefit from public ownership. A well managed and publically owned estate provides the sort of public benefits we need to protect, such as access and biodiversity. The Natural Environment White Paper stated a renewed commitment to restoring and conserving ancient woodlands.
	The Government will now need time to properly consider the work of the panel; we will respond more fully by January 2013.

Overseas Aid

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what his policy is on the UK Aid logo featuring in addition to the EU Aid logo where UK direct aid has been provided.

Alan Duncan: We use the UK aid logo where ever possible to highlight our work, as long as it does not compromise security. Where we co-fund projects with the European Union, our policy is to use the UK aid logo.

Public Expenditure

Cathy Jamieson: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether he expects his Department to underspend its budget for 2012-13; and what estimate he has made of any such underspend.

Alan Duncan: The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) forecast underspends in departmental expenditure limits as part of their economic and fiscal outlook in the autumn.
	As part of the Transparency Agenda the Government publishes the full detail of plans and out-turn for all Departments after the end of the financial year, usually in September. HM Treasury publish out-turn data for all Departments from the Combined Online Information System (COINS) database, available on the Treasury website on a quarterly basis. Forecasts for 2012-13 out-turn by Department will be published at Budget 2013.

Apprentices

Catherine McKinnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what criteria his Department uses to determine the number of apprenticeship places created in any given time period.

John Hayes: The Skills Funding Agency, which administers the Apprenticeship programme, records all Government funded training on the Individualised Learner Record, including information about Apprenticeships.
	To be recorded as an Apprenticeship the programme of learning must comply with the statutory standards including the requirement for the apprentice to be employed.
	The headline figure on Apprenticeship places is the number of people starting an Apprenticeship (‘starts'). Provisional figures on starts are released quarterly, and final figures for each academic year are released annually.

Economic Growth: South East

Nicholas Soames: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what recent assessment he has made of the rate of economic growth in (a) the South East, (b) West Sussex and (c) Mid Sussex.

Mark Prisk: holding answer 10 July 2012
	The most suitable data to assess sub-national economic growth is the Regional Gross Value Added (GVA) data produced by the Office for National Statistics (ONS).
	The latest comparable data available is for 2009 which shows that total GVA in the South East stood at £179,317 million, a decrease of 2.0% on the previous year. The total GVA for West Sussex was £15,237 million in 2009, which was a 2.5% decrease on the previous year.
	Between 1997 and 2009, the total GVA for West Sussex increased at an annual rate nominal rate of 3.9%. This compares to average annual change in the South East over the same period of 4.7%.
	It is not possible to provide equivalent data at the Mid-Sussex level.

Green Growth

Nicholas Soames: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what steps he is taking to promote green growth as a response to climate change.

Mark Prisk: We are committed to taking action now to put the whole economy on a low-carbon, resource efficient path. In doing so we need to maintain UK competitiveness and lay the foundations for strong and sustainable growth in the future.
	Last year the Government published “Enabling the Transition to a Green Economy” which will help inform the continuing dialogue between government, business and communities. It sets out the range of policies we are using to support the transition to a green economy, the opportunities that are created and the implications for the way in which businesses operate.
	The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has a number of programmes that are relevant to the development of the UK's green economy. Among them is the £125 million Advanced Manufacturing Supply Chain fund, which aims to increase growth potential in manufacturing by improving the competitiveness of supply chains. It is open to businesses in the renewable energy and other low-carbon sectors. There is also support available through the regional growth fund, from which several companies involved in renewable energy have benefited. The Department is also supporting innovation through the Technology Strategy Board's catapult centres, including the Offshore Renewable Energy Catapult. This will bring forward new innovation and help drive down costs in offshore renewable energy technologies. The Manufacturing Advisory Service includes within its remit low carbon and supply chain diversification themes.
	The Government recognise that development of appropriate skills is an important part of the green economy. A report "Skills for a Green Economy" was published in October 2011, and maps out possible skills needs and gaps across different green sectors. The Government have put learners and employers in the driving seat, giving them the support, funding and information to make the right choices and to help employers shape the skills system. Taken together, we are creating a strong and flexible platform to meet the skills needs for the green economy transition.
	The UK Green Investment Bank (UK GIB) is being developed as a key component of the Government's transition to a green and growing economy. The Bank's mission is “to provide financial solutions to accelerate private sector investment in the UK's transition to a green economy”. Funded with £3 billion, it will tackle finance gaps which still remain despite a range of strong policies to incentivise green investments. It will work towards a “double bottom line” of both achieving environmental policies and making positive financial returns.

Public Expenditure

Cathy Jamieson: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills whether he expects his Department to underspend its budget for 2012-13; and what estimate he has made of any such underspend.

Norman Lamb: The Office for Budget Responsibility forecast underspends in Departmental Expenditure Limits as part of their Economic and Fiscal Outlook in the autumn.
	As part of the transparency agenda the Government publishes the full detail of plans and outturn for all Departments after the end of the financial year, usually in September. HM Treasury publish outturn data for all Departments from the COINS database, available on the Treasury website, on a quarterly basis. Forecasts for 2012-13 outturn by Department will be published at Budget 2013.